HOI3: What we don't want

[unmerged(78438)]

This isnt Civilization. :rofl:

The Atlantikwall wasn't damaging aircraft carriers who sailed through the channel.

It doesnt matter if this isnt Civilization. If I have coastal fortifications, and I'm being bombarded/invaded in that territory, my Coastal defenses would be firing at the enemy ships. That's what they are there for.

If a fleet of transports land troops in my territory, I expect the transports (and troops, since they are getting some sea water) to be damaged in the process. Even if the territory is undefended, those defenses are still there, making life hell for ships (and transports, who have to close that distance).

 

[TheLand]

It doesnt matter if this isnt Civilization. If I have coastal fortifications, and I'm being bombarded/invaded in that territory, my Coastal defenses would be firing at the enemy ships. That's what they are there for.

Did coastal guns inflict much damage on warship in WWII?

 

[WarDog]

Did coastal guns inflict much damage on warship in WWII?

Minimal. The brave norweagians managed to sink the heavy cruiser Blücher at Oscarsborg coastal fortress in 40. But not by the guns. It was a hidden torpedo chamber that did the damage. Thats the only actual sinking I can remember. During the D-Day landings the only vessels sunk by the Atlantic wall was landing crafts close to the beach IIRC.

IMO Coastal fortresses function ok as they do.

 

[TheLand]

Minimal. The brave norweagians managed to sink the heavy cruiser Blücher at Oscarsborg coastal fortress in 40. But not by the guns. It was a hidden torpedo chamber that did the damage. Thats the only actual sinking I can remember. During the D-Day landings the only vessels sunk by the Atlantic wall was landing crafts close to the beach IIRC.

IMO Coastal fortresses function ok as they do.

Thought as much.

I remember both Britain and Germany installing massive guns at the Straits of Dover, which then succeeded in hitting absolutely nothing throughout the war...

 

[unmerged(101730)]

Did coastal guns inflict much damage on warship in WWII?

The ones at Gibraltar prevented most of the Axis ship movement through the strait. That's not a simple unit damage, of course, but the possibility of such was there and real.

 

[WarDog]

The ones at Gibraltar prevented most of the Axis ship movement through the strait. That's not a simple unit damage, of course, but the possibility of such was there and real.

And that is treated as a blocked strait if you control Gibraltar in the game.

 

[unmerged(78438)]

If you are going to give an example of how coastal defenses failed to damage ships, then we might as well make sure the Germans cant win the game. In fact, we should stick to strict scripting to ensure that everything goes according to plan.

Yeah, right.

Coastal guns are big, scary, and loud. They arent for show, they are to control the range that ships can recklessly approach. Transports can invade a level 10 territory with little trouble, unless infantry occupies the area. Rather than have to stick 1 militia on the entirity of a coastline (something I've done with all of Western Europe), why cant we have Coastal guns do their job and damage/sink ships approaching?

We arent talking about ONE or TWO guns here, we are talking about density based on the fortification level of the territory. When I have level 10 Coastal defenses, I expect results, not a bonus to INFANTRY combat.

 

[WarDog]

I believe history is an invaluable for evaluating strategies and equipment. IMO that is not the same as being deterministic.


The big guns was disappointingly useless in WW2. It's immobility and air power rendered it obsolete. All the large anti-ship guns that could have reached the invasion fleet on D-day was destroyed by planes. If they where operational with the radars and everything, they might have made a dent in the allied BB, BC and H/LC screen. But they could not have stopped the invasion.

The important part of a coastal fortress is to defeat or delay an invasion with ground forces. The coastal fortress in HOI does that by giving a heavy penalty to invading units.

A coastal fortress that is not defended with troops is worthless. Several of the landing zones in Normandy was almost undefended and consequently very few invading soldiers was lost due to enemy activity on those beaches.
On the other hand, a beach like Omaha, witch had more defenders in the fortifications, where quite costly for the invaders.

The inability of the coastal fortress in HOI to affect an invasion, unless it is manned with fighting units, gives you the same dilemma as Hitler had. Should I spread my units out thin everywhere, or concentrate them behind the coast to strike back? Rommel wanted the first, but Hitler chose the last and lost.

 

[unmerged(101730)]

And that is treated as a blocked strait if you control Gibraltar in the game.

Yes, it is. The more realistic approach (which would allow historical strategies like the German submarines entering the Mediterranean during the war) would be for the coastal installations there to be able to damage ships passing by heavily, with submarine ships having a good chance to avoid detection.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Yes, it is. The more realistic approach (which would allow historical strategies like the German submarines entering the Mediterranean during the war) would be for the coastal installations there to be able to damage ships passing by heavily, with submarine ships having a good chance to avoid detection.

The problem I see with this is that you would have to be very careful with the AI scripting or it will commit logistical suicide, losing transports and ships constantly.

 

[Shadow Master]

The important part of a coastal fortress is to defeat or delay an invasion with ground forces. The coastal fortress in HOI does that by giving a heavy penalty to invading units.

A coastal fortress that is not defended with troops is worthless. Several of the landing zones in Normandy was almost undefended and consequently very few invading soldiers was lost due to enemy activity on those beaches.
On the other hand, a beach like Omaha, witch had more defenders in the fortifications, where quite costly for the invaders.

The inability of the coastal fortress in HOI to affect an invasion, unless it is manned with fighting units, gives you the same dilemma as Hitler had. Should I spread my units out thin everywhere, or concentrate them behind the coast to strike back? Rommel wanted the first, but Hitler chose the last and lost.

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that it was Hitler's instance that the troops (and fortifications) be deployed right at the coast so as to cost an invader dearly right from the start, while it was the high command that wanted to build and deploy further back, to avoid overextending themselves and limiting there vulnerability to allied naval bombardment.

 

[daemonofdecay]

A coastal fortress that is not defended with troops is worthless. Several of the landing zones in Normandy was almost undefended and consequently very few invading soldiers was lost due to enemy activity on those beaches.
On the other hand, a beach like Omaha, witch had more defenders in the fortifications, where quite costly for the invaders.

And thats a critical point: otherwise, as Germany I could just build the Atlantikwall and watch the UK loose all of their convoys, ships, etc. just for being in the Channel, without even needing to place soldiers there.

Should large naval fortifications (level 3 or 4+?) affect ships doing a shore bombardment mission? Possibly. This would reflect large caliber guns in dug in positions that could reach out quite a distance. But they should a) require a garrison to man them and b) be able to be reduced easily through air/sea attacks (and should not be able to sink half a dozen capital ships).

But naval fortifications should not just decimate any ship that travels in that costal province. I could be sailing many kilometers from the coast, way out of range of the guns.

Its not historically accurate, and doesn't add anything to the game. They main point of naval fortifications was to resist a landing. The Germans didn't build the Atlantikwall to attack the Royal Navy. Those guns were to target incoming transports, or any ship that sailed in close for bombardment.

 

[daemonofdecay]

Did coastal guns inflict much damage on warship in WWII?

If I remember correctly, the USS Texas took a single shot from the defenses at Cherbourg when it supported the attacks there.

It was a dud, too.

What needs to be noted is that very large costal batteries (250 mm+ ?) were very, very rare, and very fragile. It is not historically accurate to be able to attrition your opponent down and sink large shipswith naval fortifications.

EDIT: Oh I forgot: I believe a Destroyer was sunk off of the Normandy coast when it struck a mine, along with some LCIs and whatnot.

 

[Panzergruppe]

-no phantom fleets

-no hard coded provinces, if stalingrad is captured by germany, let them rename it. I don't think they would have a city called stalingrad in their thousand year reich.

 

[daedalus]

What I dont want:

- People whining when the game is so far from coming out.

 

[daemonofdecay]

-no phantom fleets

-no hard coded provinces, if stalingrad is captured by germany, let them rename it. I don't think they would have a city called stalingrad in their thousand year reich.

If you play against me in MP, be prepared to fight a war were every province in the Soviet Union is named Penis.

Its really confuses the spies, I tell you. . .

 

[Panzergruppe]

If you play against me in MP, be prepared to fight a war were every province in the Soviet Union is named Penis.

Its really confuses the spies, I tell you. . .

In Armageddon, the capital of the Russian Empire is called Leningrad, I want to avoid that kind of stuff. It probably should be events that changed them though so you couldn't do it in-game (maybe if you mod), like if Russia seized Königsberg it would be renamed Kaliningrad etc.

 

[unmerged(101730)]

The problem I see with this is that you would have to be very careful with the AI scripting or it will commit logistical suicide, losing transports and ships constantly.

Well, "better AI" is the most-voiced wish for HoI3 anyway.

Gibraltar is a good example of coastal fortifications sinking a number of warships (9 submarines, in this case) as well as their mere presence making the waters nearby too dangerous for enemy ships to cross.

 

[unmerged(78438)]

And thats a critical point: otherwise, as Germany I could just build the Atlantikwall and watch the UK loose all of their convoys, ships, etc. just for being in the Channel, without even needing to place soldiers there.

Should large naval fortifications (level 3 or 4+?) affect ships doing a shore bombardment mission? Possibly. This would reflect large caliber guns in dug in positions that could reach out quite a distance. But they should a) require a garrison to man them and b) be able to be reduced easily through air/sea attacks (and should not be able to sink half a dozen capital ships).

But naval fortifications should not just decimate any ship that travels in that costal province. I could be sailing many kilometers from the coast, way out of range of the guns.

Its not historically accurate, and doesn't add anything to the game. They main point of naval fortifications was to resist a landing. The Germans didn't build the Atlantikwall to attack the Royal Navy. Those guns were to target incoming transports, or any ship that sailed in close for bombardment.

I was referring to the fact that if a landing force invades a territory, or a fleet is bombarding a territory, those guns DONT inflict losses. Also, I tend to build Level 10 fortifications at key points that have high resource/IC content, and the AI loves to poke in there.

Another strategy that is nulled because Coastal defenses do nothing - I cant bait the enemy into landing at a point. If I put level 10 coastal guns in an area, no land fortifications, and troops everywhere on the coast EXCEPT that one area, I expect them to land there. In a game that makes sense, the Coastal guns would wither the landing force's ships (and consequently troops) down a bit, then I could encircle the enemy after landing and crush them.

I dont want "passive" coastal defenses that obliterate passing ships. This is because generally the AI WONT move around the area, which they realistically would. I just want ships performing missions against a territory that has coastal defenses to feel some shells.

 

[Chief Savage Ma]

In Armageddon, the capital of the Russian Empire is called Leningrad, I want to avoid that kind of stuff. It probably should be events that changed them though so you couldn't do it in-game (maybe if you mod), like if Russia seized Königsberg it would be renamed Kaliningrad etc.

Leningrad is owned by Sweden in ARMA.